Quote: IRAQ-KUWAIT BORDER — The last U.S. combat troops were crossing the border into Kuwait on Thursday morning, bringing to a close the active combat phase of a 7½-year war that overthrew the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein, forever defined the presidency of George W. Bush and left more than 4,400 American service members and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.

Sorry if this was posted. Glad to see these folks getting closer to home.

There are still thousands of combat arms soldiers in Iraq, who are armed with heavy weapons that can f*ck you up. The idea that the war is over, is laughable.

But with all of that being said... would any of us ever have imagined this day would have come? I remember being in Iraq in 2006, during the high of the insurgency, and thinking that the situation was hopeless. If you go back and reread some of my threads, I was fairly pessimistic.

Yet here we are... leaving in a controlled manner, in a relatively peaceful situation. I know some people are going to credit President Bush, but personally I give all the credit to Generals Patraeus and Odierno.

I do not directly blame President Bush for how poorly the war was managed. For that, I reserve my deep hatred for Donald Rumsfeld. He was unquestionably the worst SecDef in US history. I blame President Bush for hiring that man, and then keeping him on board for 7 years. Inexcusable.

The only brilliant thing President Bush did, when it came to Iraq, was promoting General Patraeus to MNF-I commander. He and General Odierno turned the hopeless situation around. Their strategy and strong leadership is why we are able to leave Iraq with a semblance of honor.

I am not ashamed to say that I am honored to have served in Iraq.

Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have﻿ to go to your funeral.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):Yet here we are... leaving in a controlled manner, in a relatively peaceful situation. I know some people are going to credit President Bush, but personally I give all the credit to Generals Patraeus and Odierno.

I do not directly blame President Bush for how poorly the war was managed. For that, I reserve my deep hatred for Donald Rumsfeld. He was unquestionably the worst SecDef in US history. I blame President Bush for hiring that man, and then keeping him on board for 7 years. Inexcusable.

I could not agree more.

Btw..

Is the US going to maintain any bases post 2011, after all is said and done I think at the US should maintain bases at Ali/Tallil Air Base, Al Asad and Joint Base Balad.

Thank you for doing it, but I am afraid that within the year, there will be a rebellion and a new extremist dictatorship will rear its ugly head.

My father served in Iraq and Saudi at the beginning in 2003. A great many people have done a lot to make this happen.

However I still don't see Iraq maintaining stability . There are far too many issues with the native population. A lot of what has quited down seems to me to be more of the Iraqi's taking a bunker mentality and just waiting out the US departure.

The Iraq War chapter has come to its end. About time too. Wonder if the Afghanistan War will proceed better? Though reports are that ever since Iraq, there was no clear strategy in Afghanistan, hence the increased insurgency.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):would any of us ever have imagined this day would have come? I remember being in Iraq in 2006, during the high of the insurgency, and thinking that the situation was hopeless. If you go back and reread some of my threads, I was fairly pessimistic.

I think that, had McCain won the presidency, we would be looking at a different scenario. After all, he vowed that if we needed to be 100 years in Iraq, then we would be...

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 7):I think that, had McCain won the presidency, we would be looking at a different scenario. After all, he vowed that if we needed to be 100 years in Iraq, then we would be...

I think you're adding politics, where politics need not be.

Just look at the facts. The "surge" was the master plan of Generals Patraeus and Odierno. It's hard to argue against the success of the Surge and COIN operations those two men undertook. The set clear goal markers, and as they were reached, the operation moved into the end game. It was the two generals who started the plan for the draw down, and did it when President Bush was still on office. When President Obama was elected, he deferred to their judgment. In fact, he originally wanted to withdraw sooner, but the two cautioned against it, and advised a more measured withdrawal. He did the right thing and listened to his generals. He didn't do anything extraordinary or precipitous to get us to where we are.

So unless you can substantiate your claim that Sen McCain would have done it all differently, ignored the Generals, and denied any withdrawals... you're simply trying to get the political reactionaries on this forum, all worked up. Spare us.

Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have﻿ to go to your funeral.

A young lady (18) from our high-school just deployed into Iraq with her Army unit. Some kind of security outfit ... not sure but she is essentially a police officer . We know her parents ... we know her and just cant imagine what she does everyday in that hostile place....

I hope this news today does not effect our support of the Americans in there in danger....we still have many in need. It is tremendously hot there right now from what I hear and this adds to the punishing task they do everyday.

Quoting KPDX (Reply 10):Wow, this is just as bad as the "Mission Accomplished" deal.

To the men and women in the Stryker brigade crossing into Kuwait ...and many many many others who spent time there , it is a good day. We must give there efforts credit .... and a ceremonial end to combat operations is important. Our Military is divided into direct combat units and units that do all the other dirty work. Giving credit to the efforts of these combat units is a good thing ....

Quoting KPDX (Reply 12):Oh, absolutely! I am just saying the notion that the war is over in Iraq is BS.

The war is over .... the war between Iraqi's is certainly yet to be settled and that is what this is all about. The entire war was to set the stage for the Iraqi's to play out there future ... it is up to them and only them.

Congratulations to 2ID being part of the closing act .... they certainly have been in the thick of it .

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 8):So unless you can substantiate your claim that Sen McCain would have done it all differently, ignored the Generals, and denied any withdrawals... you're simply trying to get the political reactionaries on this forum, all worked up. Spare us.

I did not say McCain would have done any of that...what I said is that we would be looking at a different scenario. Notice how I did not specify what his course of action would be. Maybe he would've gone ahead and withdraw the troops, maybe he would've extended their stay...who knows? And unfortunately, politics do come into this discussion, even though the withdrawal has nothing to do with it. If there hadn't been an Iraq War, for which everyone here is still figuring out the purpose, this topic would not even exist. I have to be honest, I thought that the war would be over as soon as Saddam had been captured and that did not materialize. So when exactly would the war be over?

This is not a triumph, this is a forced retreat. President Obama needed to do this for several reasons:

1. The political support for this war is very low in the US and Obama promised to put an end to it. Therefore he was voted. Not pulling out of Iraq would certainly cost him re-election, possibly through a candidate in his own party.

2. The US economy and public deficit are in such a bad condition that he couldn't afford to keep this war going. It is simply too expensive.

3. The US military is over-stretched and exhausted. The material is in a bad condition and morale is low. In addition it still has a lot of work to do in Afghanistan.

In February 2009 Obama announced the withdrawal within 18 month. At the end of 2011, all troops (except a very few) will be gone. What do you thin happens then?

Iraq is still divided into Shia & Sunni Arabs and Kurds. There are still many revenges to be taken.

The so-called police and army are not very strong and every one of them is a member of some tribe and some religious faction. Their weapons and training will be fuel to the upcoming confrontations.

There are still bombings. Most of the "terrorists/rebels/bad guys/evil doers/etc." are probably just trying to increase their armies and their firing powers and waiting until all US troops are gone (smarter than getting killed against a force that will pull out anyway). Soon after the withdrawal is completed, the civil war will break out.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):He and General Odierno turned the hopeless situation around. Their strategy and strong leadership is why we are able to leave Iraq with a semblance of honor.

Great strategy, giving money and weapons to Sunni militias in Anbar to make them work against Al-Qaida. How deep is their loyalty really? Who will they fight for next? Just read an article that when the money doesn't come like it should (corruption?) they are offered by Al-Qaida to either work for them (with pay) or be killed. The Iraqi version of the Latin America "plomo o plata".

Their loyalty can/will change, their American-supplied weapons will stay.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):I am not ashamed to say that I am honored to have served in Iraq.

I'm proud of you for serving and appreciate you putting your ass on the line for all of us. Thanks.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4): I am afraid that within the year, there will be a rebellion and a new extremist dictatorship will rear its ugly head.

Possible, but remember that we're not going anywhere in the next year. We'll still have 50k troops on the ground, Plus a division's worth of contractors working for State.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 15): The political support for this war is very low in the US and Obama promised to put an end to it. Therefore he was voted. Not pulling out of Iraq would certainly cost him re-election, possibly through a candidate in his own party.

He was not voted in for that. Your interpretation of US politics is faulty on this account. He was voted in by a populace, narrowly, who wanted him to fix the economy as he promised. He had to pull back on his war promises during the final run-up because it wasn't working for him. He'd already been proven wrong on the surge, and was already backpedaling on other military issues.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 15):The US economy and public deficit are in such a bad condition that he couldn't afford to keep this war going. It is simply too expensive.

Actually, it costs us less than the incredibly expensive, and perpetual/non-ending spending programs he's initiated since taking office. Wars are temporary, massive overspending on entitlement programs arent.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 15):The US military is over-stretched and exhausted. The material is in a bad condition and morale is low. In addition it still has a lot of work to do in Afghanistan.

The military is not in bad condition, and morale is high until you start talking to people about quitting before it's finished, and telling them that it was all for nothing (pulling out before the resolution is clear is demoralizing). Exhausted? Wrong word. Now...let's talk again in a year when the budget cuts hit and spares once again become non-existent for equipment that's now headed for replacement. SOrt of like at the end of the Clinton administration.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 15):In February 2009 Obama announced the withdrawal within 18 month. At the end of 2011, all troops (except a very few) will be gone. What do you thin happens then?

He's made a bunch of promises (closing Gitmo was one) that haven't happened. President Obama would pull out prematurely from Iraq only at his political peril. Gen. Petraeus has already said what many in the Administration are afraid to.....they're there until it makes sense to leave. The Iraqis don't want us completely gone, and have openly said so.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):I do not directly blame President Bush for how poorly the war was managed. For that, I reserve my deep hatred for Donald Rumsfeld. He was unquestionably the worst SecDef in US history. I blame President Bush for hiring that man, and then keeping him on board for 7 years. Inexcusable.

Completely agree with you on that one. McNamara was bad, but Rumsfeld was a disaster, and the effects of his "leadership" will take years to repair.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):I am not ashamed to say that I am honored to have served in Iraq.

As a veteran from long ago, I can say that while I believe we were wrong to fight in Iraq, I am proud of you and all the brave men and women of our armed forces who sacrificed so much in service of our nation.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 15):The US military is over-stretched and exhausted. The material is in a bad condition and morale is low. In addition it still has a lot of work to do in Afghanistan.

The bit about having a lot of work to do in Afghanistan I won't argue with because that certainly is a factual statement. Are we overstretched and exhausted? I have friends far and wide that have deployed three and even four times in recent years and are chomping at the bit to go again because they believe in what we are trying to accomplish and want to be alongside of their brothers. The US military is as large as it has been in many years and continues to grow. Of course you will find disgruntled service members everywhere who want nothing more than to get out, but overall morale is far from being low. I'm currently in a Heavy Brigade Combat Team that is not combat deployable and I would say the overwhelming majority of us want nothing more than to get back into unit that will take us to the fight. Don't believe everything you read in the media.

Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

At the risk of brushing those slightly pahetic "thank yous" aside - the U.S. leaves a desolate, ruined Iraq with a weak government, weak security forces and insurgents that, while weakened, are still going strong. Besides, there are still separatist movements in the north and south with Iran and Syria trying to gain influence.
Hence, the retreat seems to follow the motiv "grit your teeth and get on with it".

No matter how heart warming the pictures - the retreat will naturally be an open invitation to discuss the question, whether it was "worth" it or not. More than 4,000 American and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers as well as 100,000 civilians died. The status quo is insecure, same with the country's future, but Iraq and the world got rid of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. 740 Billion Dollars were spent.
Perhaps the invasion was crucial for Iran and North Korea to develop nukes, but certainly influence and power of the Iranian mullahs rose to new highs. At the same time, the Iraqi people at least have some sort of a democratically elected government, albeit without much freedom.

And when the Americans have come to a conclusion whether or not it was "worth" it, the next question should be what this war teaches us for the future.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 22):At the risk of brushing those slightly pahetic "thank yous" aside - the U.S. leaves a desolate, ruined Iraq with a weak government, weak security forces and insurgents that, while weakened, are still going strong. Besides, there are still separatist movements in the north and south with Iran and Syria trying to gain influence.

There are endless threads in the archives, discussing whether it was right or wrong, to invade Iraq. I think by this point, the argument has been beaten to death on A.net.

But back here in reality, the decision - regardless of being right or wrong - was made. All this debate couldn't change that we were there, it was going badly, and we needed to do something different.

In 2006, when things were arguably at their worst, we had three basic options:

1.) Get the hell out of there as soon as we could fly, sail, drive, run out of there. Forget about the consequences, forget about trying to train self-sufficiency to the ISF, and get out as fast as we could.

2.) Stay the course. Hope that things calmed down. Retract our forces from the cities, and focus on training the ISF. Internal Iraqi security could be their responsibility, not ours.

3.) Surge and switch to COIN tactics. Flood the towns and cities with manpower. Make deals with local leaders. "Take the gloves off".

Well I don't know about you, but none of those options were particularly appealing. None of them the "easy" choice. All of them carried risks. History shows that the third option was chosen - to the consternation of many. But history also shows that it dramatically cut the violence. It is undeniable that Baghdad in late '06, is not the same Baghdad of today. That didn't just happen by chance. It was a direct result of Generals Petraeus and Odierno, and their strong leadership and commitment to classic COIN ops.

Out of all the options, I think history will show that they took a poorly conceived war, and were able to turn it around and leave in the best way we could have hoped for.

Could things have been a hell of a lot better? Damn right. But 7 years of Donald Rumsfeld's destructive leadership - and President Bush's laissez-faire attitude towards managing his principals - made it impossible to leave on the best terms. But with all of that being said, I think we're leaving in the best fashion that we could have ever hoped for. It's quite amazing.

Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have﻿ to go to your funeral.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 25):Now Sharia law is the basis of Iraqi law. I can't imagine what it would feel like to be a soldier who fought to install Islamic law in a foreign country.

I thought Islam was a peaceful religion? A benign and respectful practice with altruistic intentions? Are you saying that they are a barbaric, woman hating, human rights hating, animalistic people? That isn't very culturally sensitive and understanding of you.

Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have﻿ to go to your funeral.

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 20):The bit about having a lot of work to do in Afghanistan I won't argue with because that certainly is a factual statement. Are we overstretched and exhausted? I have friends far and wide that have deployed three and even four times in recent years and are chomping at the bit to go again because they believe in what we are trying to accomplish and want to be alongside of their brothers. The US military is as large as it has been in many years and continues to grow. Of course you will find disgruntled service members everywhere who want nothing more than to get out, but overall morale is far from being low. I'm currently in a Heavy Brigade Combat Team that is not combat deployable and I would say the overwhelming majority of us want nothing more than to get back into unit that will take us to the fight. Don't believe everything you read in the media.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 22):At the risk of brushing those slightly pahetic "thank yous" aside - the U.S. leaves a desolate, ruined Iraq with a weak government, weak security forces and insurgents that, while weakened, are still going strong

Well being that I am on my 3rd tour in Iraq right now, I do have a different picture, as I interact with Iraqis on a daily basis, and I have seen and heard in person, the good we have done for this country. What you see on the news is a small percentage of what goes on here. Noboby wants to hear about us building schools, clinics, power plants, bridges etc. they would much rather show a bomb going off in the Green Zone.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 23):There are endless threads in the archives, discussing whether it was right or wrong, to invade Iraq. I think by this point, the argument has been beaten to death on A.net.

I had no intention to reanimate those countless threads on the war, hence I didn't even express my stance on this matter.
But it should become (again) an issue in the USA, say in the sense of a resume. "Retreat and quietly bury the whole matter" seems a bit cheap against the background that more than 4,000 soldiers died, the public were lied to, and some openly advocated ill-treatment, even torture. And that's only the American side.

You stress that the decision was made, and that's what counts. While this is true, it won't hurt to draw some conclusions. Not here on a.net, but in the American public and Washington D.C.

I do not know what kind of newspapers you read, but reputable sources did cover the efforts Americans took. Only that those can barely distract from the fact that Iraq is a ruined country. And frankly, while soldiers of course can tell how's life like as a soldier in Iraq (or the Green Zone), I trust the reports of journalists more. They simply talk to more people, have a better knowledge of the political background and they usually can tell smoke and mirrors from real progress. You mentioned schools. True, schools were built, but many did not have running water (hence no bathrooms) and electricity was only there for a couple of hours a day. You even built a modern stock exchange no one of the Iraqis really wanted.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 29):And frankly, while soldiers of course can tell how's life like as a soldier in Iraq (or the Green Zone), I trust the reports of journalists more. They simply talk to more people, have a better knowledge of the political background and they usually can tell smoke and mirrors from real progress.

That's the line of departure for me. While I won't deny that journalism has its place in the forum of discussion and is important, it is difficult to find unbiased sources who have true knowledge of the situation at hand. The soldiers on the ground are the ones that are rebuilding schools and infrastructure and are the ones who are there to develop deep-seated relationships with the populace. Journalists can write a story based upon the views of a few and as long as they can get a few quotes in there that support what they want you to read it's all too easy. This is not to say that there have not been gruesome problems and certainly there is more work to be done. There are parts of Iraq now where US soldiers can walk around without body armor and visit local establishments to interact with the public who are greatful for their presence. Who would have thought that would be possible just two years ago? War inherently causes pain and suffering, whether or not it was right to invade Iraq is a moot point but will certainly shape US foreign policy decisions as a learning point for years to come.

You note that Iraq is a ruined country, when in recent history has it not been "ruined"? Do you honestly think that the Iraqi's were better off under a genocidal dictator? I'm sure some Kurds could tell you a few stories. How about the Shiia? They have schools, universities are teaching an open curriculum, power, running water, local governments, public services. Is it perfect? No. Is it continually getting better? Yes. I think there are some people out there who are bound and determined not to see Iraq succeed. The media reports 1 good story for every 10 bad things that happen and quite frankly its been out of hand for years. My bottom line is that there is more good to the overall story than a lot of people want to believe. It is my sincere hope that after all the losses that have been incurred over the last 7 or so years that Iraq does succeed and I don't see the US just letting it slip back into oblivion again. We've invested too many lives and resources to do so.

Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 28):You stress that the decision was made, and that's what counts. While this is true, it won't hurt to draw some conclusions. Not here on a.net, but in the American public and Washington D.C.

It appears as if the American people have moved on, maybe what is at issue is that they are not doing the things that non-Americans want them to do. I visited Washington DC last month, a visit to the Vietnam, Korea, WWII memorial or Arlington National Cemetary gives an idea of how the nation in general treats battles they have been in.
Some may want them to keep beating the drums of why they got into the Iraq war everytime Social Security, Campaign Finance, MedicAid etc. etc. comes up, but that is living in the past, nations do not advance doing such things.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 28):And frankly, while soldiers of course can tell how's life like as a soldier in Iraq (or the Green Zone), I trust the reports of journalists more.

So which journalist are you going to choose to give your faith and trust too, since their agenda's are infallible, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, CBC, Al Jezera?

This so called "fourth estate" in the US for example in my opinion lost a lot of its lustre when "for profit" took precedence over making a profit while reporting the news.

Quoting dl021 (Reply 16):He was not voted in for that. Your interpretation of US politics is faulty on this account. He was voted in by a populace, narrowly, who wanted him to fix the economy as he promised. He had to pull back on his war promises during the final run-up because it wasn't working for him. He'd already been proven wrong on the surge, and was already backpedaling on other military issues.

He certainly was voted for a lot of reasons, but among them the fact that he was against this war, because so many Americans were against that war. He promised to end it, he will end it (the American engagement, though not the fighting).

Quoting dl021 (Reply 16):Actually, it costs us less than the incredibly expensive, and perpetual/non-ending spending programs he's initiated since taking office. Wars are temporary, massive overspending on entitlement programs arent.

Those programs - I understand a lot of the spendings are indeed temporary - will spend money in the US, stimulating the US economy. The money spent for the Iraq war - a billion per week or even more - will return only partially to the US. A lot of it is spent for fuel, logistics, mercenaries etc., that doesn't come back in the US economy. Besides, temporary? 2003-2011 is a long time already, but if Obama didn't end it, it would have to go on for decades.

Quoting dl021 (Reply 16):The military is not in bad condition, and morale is high until you start talking to people about quitting before it's finished, and telling them that it was all for nothing (pulling out before the resolution is clear is demoralizing). Exhausted? Wrong word. Now...let's talk again in a year when the budget cuts hit and spares once again become non-existent for equipment that's now headed for replacement. SOrt of like at the end of the Clinton administration.

OK, I don't have real figures. But from what I've read about material condition, suicides, low recruitment figures, etc., the overall condition of the military is bad. The combat troops didn't have enough time for training and material works in the past years, because they were away from their home bases too often.

Speaking of pulling out before the resolution - isn't that what's happening now. However, I believe a real resolution isn't possible, or at least not the one that was originally intended. Saddam kept the country together with an iron fist. That fist was removed, now the country will get a new iron fist or will break apart. Anyway, it will not be a working democracy. I always shook my head when people said that Iraq 2003 was like Germany 1945. Germany had a democratic tradition from at least 1848 on and had neighbours with an even longer democratic tradition (even those who are still officially monarchies). Iraq is not in a situation like that.

Quoting dl021 (Reply 16):He's made a bunch of promises (closing Gitmo was one) that haven't happened. President Obama would pull out prematurely from Iraq only at his political peril. Gen. Petraeus has already said what many in the Administration are afraid to.....they're there until it makes sense to leave. The Iraqis don't want us completely gone, and have openly said so.

A lot of Iraqis don't want the US forces to leave, but as I pointed out above, the US is forced to leave. In the words of Tariq Asis, the US is leaving Iraq to the wolves now. Anyway, leaving is bad, but staying would be worse. There is no ideal solution, so it is probably better to go now and leave it to the Iraqis, than to stay forever in an effort that won't work.

Soldiers are dead, money is gone, it won't help to sacrifice more of both.

OK, I have my picture from the media, you are inside one unit. I respect that you feel that morale is high, my understanding from the media is different.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 19):the U.S. leaves a desolate, ruined Iraq with a weak government, weak security forces and insurgents that, while weakened, are still going strong.

100% agreed. Keep in mind that the insurgents are mainly Sunni Arabs (15% of the population), while the much stronger Kurdish (20%) and Shia (60+ %) militias were mostly sitting it out until the Americans left.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 19):And when the Americans have come to a conclusion whether or not it was "worth" it, the next question should be what this war teaches us for the future.

Was it worth it? Can't be answered before 2020 I would say. What it teaches? Wars suck, US lost its "invincibility" that it was thought to have after 1991, smaller dictatorships (Iran, North Korea, possibly others) are looking for nukes, which make them uninvadable.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):Could things have been a hell of a lot better? Damn right. But 7 years of Donald Rumsfeld's destructive leadership - and President Bush's laissez-faire attitude towards managing his principals - made it impossible to leave on the best terms. But with all of that being said, I think we're leaving in the best fashion that we could have ever hoped for. It's quite amazing.

I agree that it could have been worse. However, I still believe that the promise to pull the troops out made the attacks against the US troops go down and the violent ones are waiting until it is finished. After that: New trouble.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22):Now Sharia law is the basis of Iraqi law. I can't imagine what it would feel like to be a soldier who fought to install Islamic law in a foreign country.

It's an Islamic country, what did you expect?

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 26):Noboby wants to hear about us building schools, clinics, power plants, bridges etc. they would much rather show a bomb going off in the Green Zone.

Yes, that is how the media works, show the spectacular events. Clinics, power plants bridges - how many have US forces destroyed in Iraq?

Quoting Thorben (Reply 31):OK, I have my picture from the media, you are inside one unit. I respect that you feel that morale is high, my understanding from the media is different.

I have my picture from being in a combat arms unit that has 900 men, most of which have come from many different units that have deployed many different times. That 900 men unit is apart of another larger unit that has several thousand men that share the same experiences. The media is not the end all say-all. It just isn't.

Here is the perfect example. I just googled "army iraq morale" and have come up with stories from different parts of the campaign that support both sides of the morale question. It again depends on what side the journalist is attempting to show and who they talk to. US Commanders and civilian officials who have visit Iraq recently are the ones make the assessment on US morale, and from what I hear they feel that things are going pretty well.

Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Quoting Thorben (Reply 31):A lot of Iraqis don't want the US forces to leave, but as I pointed out above, the US is forced to leave. In the words of Tariq Asis, the US is leaving Iraq to the wolves now. Anyway, leaving is bad, but staying would be worse. There is no ideal solution, so it is probably better to go now and leave it to the Iraqis, than to stay forever in an effort that won't work

By a lot what percentage are you talking about, greater than 50% or less than 50%? Once the initial invasion was completed, the bulk of deaths in Iraq were not combat deaths but insurgent / resistance whichever term you choose.They were the result of combat between a uniformed force and others who lived, worked, planned and executed their plans among the civilian population, only that same population can minimize or eliminate that violence. Now if their thinking was that once the US leaves the killing will stop because the reason for the resistance has ended, time will tell, personally, like a lot of others I believe it will get worse, and I cannot lay all the blame for that on the Americans. The Kurdish area's of Iraq especially the north has not been as violent, so a broad brush cannot be used on violence.
I'll add this piece to avoid the comment that resistance will continue as long as US forces are in country, from the current 50,000 to the lower numbers in 2011 and 2012. US, British, French and Russian forces are still in Germany and Japan, once one takes control of one's country, resistance is about occupation or presence, and does the difference mandate a different way of waging war?

Quoting Thorben (Reply 31):The money spent for the Iraq war - a billion per week or even more - will return only partially to the US. A lot of it is spent for fuel, logistics, mercenaries etc., that doesn't come back in the US economy

The US and other nations are using private security forces to provide security at compounds, convoys etc. and are looking at increasing the numbers as troops leave the country, some even use Iraqi personnel, are they included in your mercenary comment?

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 19): the next question should be what this war teaches us for the future.

Not to follow the Rumsfeld doctrine next time..Stick with Patton, Lemay, Grant, Sherman.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):Could things have been a hell of a lot better? Damn right. But 7 years of Donald Rumsfeld's destructive leadership - and President Bush's laissez-faire attitude towards managing his principals - made it impossible to leave on the best terms. But with all of that being said, I think we're leaving in the best fashion that we could have ever hoped for. It's quite amazing.

Like I said we needed Bush to clean house to start the second term fresh. But you uare alos correct with the Military leadership picking up the slack.

Quoting Thorben (Reply 15):This is not a triumph, this is a forced retreat. President Obama needed to do this for several reasons:

The Military did there Job.... they did what they were asked to do ...these events are important for the families who have sacrificed so fucking. We are talking about Dads and Moms and Brothers and Sisters coming home and out of harms way... if they get a moment of joy then that is a very good thing. If The President scores a point or two with the left ...who cares.

We know its not over ..especially the folks in Tucson today. I wish they were all coming out of there ....

Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans
A CBS News Investigation Uncovers A Suicide Rate For Veterans Twice That Of Other Americans

One version must be less true than the other. But which?

Iraq was had much better water, electricity, hospitals and education system prior to the Kuwait invasion and sanctions. Oil production is still below pre-invasion levels although it is at last getting close to them.

Rummie has a great deal to answer for. And as Powell said, China house rules.

Oh yeah. I'm sure Iran will continue to supply arms. I am also sure the surrounding countries are keeping a watchful eye on such developments. I'm sure the Saudi's would NOT like to see Iraq annexed into Iran.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):Could things have been a hell of a lot better? Damn right. But 7 years of Donald Rumsfeld's destructive leadership - and President Bush's laissez-faire attitude towards managing his principals - made it impossible to leave on the best terms. But with all of that being said, I think we're leaving in the best fashion that we could have ever hoped for. It's quite amazing.

WHAT? Are you sure you're looking at the US military? With someone who knows many recruiters and people trying to enlist, the bonuses are WAY down and standards to get in are WAY up. And as someone trying to become an officer, let me tell you, those officer slots are being filled up faster than I'd like. And part of it is the economy (probably a big part) but there have been some ingenious programs put in place to get people in that have been highly effective.

Sorry to nitpick your post. I do agree servicemembers' suicide rates are high (sadly) but the recruitment figure you got, well, that source is 100% BS

FAZ, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit, Christian Science Monitor. BBC have improved and can be considered a good source, too.
And *if* they have an agenda, it's certainly not infallible, just like every agenda. Even you, par13del, are not infallible.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 34):Journalist only tell the side of the story they want you to hear. Unbiased journalism is long gone.

What do you mean by saying "unbiased"? Journalists can have an opinion, this is not the same as being biased. Take the proposed Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero. Today's(!) FAZ sides with those opposing the center, Süddeutsche - or at least one of their editors - thinks it is much ado about little, and this week's issue of Die Zeit comes with two different comments. Different journalists tend to have different opinions, and a good and reliable news source publishes more than one stance on "hot topics", as long as the opinions are substantiated. A good journalist, however, never roots for one party (political or not) and always keeps a professional distance to the issue. This, for once, is something I do not expect from soldiers, no matter how much respect I have for them.

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 29):While I won't deny that journalism has its place in the forum of discussion and is important, it is difficult to find unbiased sources who have true knowledge of the situation at hand. The soldiers on the ground are the ones that are rebuilding schools and infrastructure and are the ones who are there to develop deep-seated relationships with the populace.

See above. I do not expect soldiers, mostly twenty-somethings, to maintain a professional distance when they put their lives at stake for what they do. Journalists do too, but they do not write articles on their role in the war.
Besides, I think you overestimate the role the individual soldier has in the rebuilding process, and the line on "deep-seated relationships" sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else. The soldiers didn't go shopping in Baghdad, didn't go to public pools or gyms and didn't have picnic with the locals. Unless they were needed, they were living behind heavily guarded walls that kept them separated from the civilians. And if they drove to say: the airport, they were driving as fast as possible, hoping to soon arrive at the next comparatively safe (= free from Iraqi people) area. They didn't stop at red lights, casually talking to the next-door Iraqi. They had their translators, sure, but why would a translator tell his generous employer, the U.S. Army or CPA, that they suck and that he thinks life was better under Saddam Hussein than under the rule of the CPA?

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 29):You note that Iraq is a ruined country, when in recent history has it not been "ruined"? Do you honestly think that the Iraqi's were better off under a genocidal dictator?

I'd say no, but I never exactly embraced Saddam Hussein, and I never endured occupation of my country. Some Iraqi actually did like Saddam. And those who didn't might say that life under S.H. was still better than a war that was followed by an occupation which resemblances a civil war in which men don't go to work, children won't go to school, when there's rarely electricity and sometimes no running water. When you run out of money and a walk to the farmer's market can be life-threatening.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 39):And those who didn't might say that life under S.H. was still better than a war that was followed by an occupation which resemblances a civil war in which men don't go to work, children won't go to school, when there's rarely electricity and sometimes no running water.

Do not suppose good data are available for the Saddam era for unemployment, but it is now reported to be 60%. Hardly a recipe for a stable state you would think.

The other matter that is beyond dispute is that women now have a more difficult time accessing education and getting work. Also pseudo-Islamic dress restrictions were not a factor under Saddam.

It is wishful thinking .... they do not know the US military. This is not Viet Nam with a bunch of conscripts and Cronkite letting the enemy know we lost....oh they yearn for the good old day's so badly .

Instead of quietly tolerating this practice that blights the lives of so many girls and women, the government needs to move swiftly to adopt a law to ban female genital mutilation.
Suad Abdulrahman, project coordinator with the Association for Crisis Assistance and Development Co-operation (WADI) in Iraqi Kurdistan

Violence in Iraq may have abated. But in the northern region of Kurdistan, women continue to suffer. A new report by Human Rights Watch, out this week, calls for a ban on the widespread practice of female circumcision in Kurdistan.

The women of Basra have disappeared. Three years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, women's secular freedoms - once the envy of women across the Middle East - have been snatched away because militant Islam is rising across the country.

Across Iraq, a bloody and relentless oppression of women has taken hold. Many women had their heads shaved for refusing to wear a scarf or have been stoned in the street for wearing make-up. Others have been kidnapped and murdered for crimes that are being labelled simply as "inappropriate behaviour". The insurrection against the fragile and barely functioning state has left the country prey to extremists whose notion of freedom does not extend to women.

And plenty more including a long illustrated article on rape by occupying forces.

In order to further its program of economic development, the government passed a compulsory education law mandating that both sexes attend school through the primary level.9 Although middle and upper class Iraqi women had been attending university since the 1920s, rural women and girls were largely uneducated until this time. In December 1979, the government passed further legislation requiring the eradication of illiteracy.10 All illiterate persons between ages fifteen and forty-five were required to attend classes at local "literacy centers," many of which were run by the GFIW. Although many conservative sectors of Iraqi society refused to allow women in their communities to go to such centers (despite potential prosecution), the literacy gap between males and females narrowed.11

The Iraqi government also passed labor and employment laws to ensure that women were granted equal opportunities in the civil service sector, maternity benefits, and freedom from harassment in the workplace.12 Such laws had a direct impact on the number of women in the workforce.13 The fact that the government (as opposed to the private sector) was hiring women contributed to the breakdown of the traditional reluctance to allow women to work outside the home.14 The Iraqi Bureau of Statistics reported that in 1976, women constituted approximately 38.5 percent of those in the education profession, 31 percent of the medical profession, 25 percent of lab technicians, 15 percent of accountants and 15 percent of civil servants.15 During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), women assumed greater roles in the workforce in general and the civil service in particular, reflecting the shortage of working age men. Until the 1990s, the number of women working outside the home continued to grow.

While most advances in women's status occurred in the political and economic spheres, the government also made modest changes to the personal status laws in 1978.16 For example, divorced mothers were granted custody of their children until the age of ten (previously seven for boys and nine for girls) at which time, at the discretion of a state-employed judge, custody could be extended to the child's fifteenth birthday.17 The child could then choose with which parent to live. Changes were also made to the conditions under which a woman could seek divorce and regulations concerning polygynous marriages and inheritance.18 These reforms reflected the Ba'ath Party's attempt to modernize Iraqi society and supplant loyalty to extended families and tribal society with loyalty to the government and ruling party.[/i]

You could also reference a number of documentary programs that have been made on the status of women in Iraq.

I cannot immediately find one for 2010 but this is related to one from 2008 and I do not think matters have improved since then.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282064.stm'National crisis' for Iraqi women
Two Iraqi women walk near a blast wall in the Karrada neighbourhood of Baghdad (archive)
Only a quarter of the women were optimistic about Iraq's future
The situation for women in Iraq has become a "national crisis" since the US-led invasion in 2003, a report by an international women's group has warned.

Women for Women International said they had had relative autonomy and security, but now faced violence, controversial leadership and poor infrastructure.

Almost two-thirds of the 1,500 women questioned for the national survey said violence against them had increased.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 43):You could also reference a number of documentary programs that have been made on the status of women in Iraq.

I cannot immediately find one for 2010 but this is related to one from 2008 and I do not think matters have improved since then.

I cannot comment on Southern Iraq or the Kurdish regions as I have spent no time there, but I have spent my time in the Sunni Triangle, and all around Baghdad, IZ, etc. and can say, these reports are not acurate in those areas.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):Do not suppose good data are available for the Saddam era for unemployment, but it is now reported to be 60%. Hardly a recipe for a stable state you would think.

Yes, but as always in a socialist economy, being unemployed was different. Just imagine you had a company in Iraq and 400 employees would be plenty to run your factory. Then once in a year the administration would come and tell you that you need to employ a further 20. The expenses would be paid for by the government. Over the years, half of your mployees would simply do *nothing* but hang around. That's idiotic, certainly, but it keeps them quiet, at least quieter as if they were at home all day living from welfare money.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 40):The other matter that is beyond dispute is that women now have a more difficult time accessing education and getting work. Also pseudo-Islamic dress restrictions were not a factor under Saddam.

We are talking about a minority dictator who fostered laws on the majority for whose benefit, his, theirs or an external power, essentially the difference between colonization and democracy.

Everyone agrees thet the US and others should not enforce their will on the people of Iraq, they should be free to decide their form of government etc. that seems hypocritiacl when we look at the invasion, but if we agree that Sadaam was a democratically elected leader who led his country into combat, that is the domain of nations. If we agree that he was not democratically elected, we are at square one, what form of government do the majority of the people of Iraq desire, what laws, standard of living, etc. etc. etc.
Do we allow them to make those choices and accept them or do we protest, there are many nations around the world that are male dominated and women are relegated to minor roles,we work with, trade and visit these nations on a daily basis, what would be the difference with Iraq?

The difference would be that on the views of many who know a great deal better than I do the ability of women to get an education and employment have been greatly diminished by our ill advised and sloppily administered invasion. Back to Powell rules.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 47):The difference would be that on the views of many who know a great deal better than I do the ability of women to get an education and employment have been greatly diminished by our ill advised and sloppily administered invasion. Back to Powell rules.

Fine, but does that change the fact that what was being done prior to the invasion was being fostered on the majority of the people by might of the gun held by the minority versus a process of education across the nation on the benefits of such freedoms?

Quoting par13del (Reply 48):what was being done prior to the invasion was being fostered on the majority of the people by might of the gun held by the minority versus a process of education across the nation on the benefits of such freedoms?

You make it sound as if I was arguing in favour of a dictatorship. I was not. What I was noting is that the changes we have FORCED on Iraq have brought significant dis-benefits to major group. Does not matter which way you cut it, that is hardly something that we can be proud of.